May God "Violate" Your "Freewill"?

[Hammster]

God cannot go against His own nature, therefore it is IMPOSSIBLE for God to lie or be unjust.
Is it being suggested by some here that God CAN lie and CAN be unjust???

The post you quoted made no such claim. God does what He pleases.


But our God is in the heavens;
He does whatever He pleases.
— Psalm 115:3

It wouldn’t please Him to go against His nature.

 

[Butterball1]

The post you quoted made no such claim. God does what He pleases.


But our God is in the heavens;
He does whatever He pleases.
— Psalm 115:3

It wouldn’t please Him to go against His nature.

Therefore God CANNOT go against His nature...Hebrews 6:18 "That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie,..."

So whatever the things are that God does that pleases Him are all things that fall within His nature.

In regards to the OP, would it please God, does it fall within the nature of God to force a man to sin againt his own will, then God punishes that man for the sin God forced him to do? No, for such is not within God's nature, God has no pleasure in such a thing, Ezekiel 18:32; 33:11.

 

[Hammster]

Therefore God CANNOT go against His nature...Hebrews 6:18 "That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie,..."

So whatever the things are that God does that pleases Him are all things that fall within His nature.

In regards to the OP, would it please God, does it fall within the nature of God to force a man to sin againt his own will, then God punishes that man for the sin God forced him to do? No, for such is not within God's nature, God has no pleasure in such a thing, Ezekiel 18:32; 33:11.

I don’t think anyone has made an argument that God forces man to sin.

 

[Butterball1]

I don’t think anyone has made an argument that God forces man to sin.

The issued raised in the OP is if God violates man free will or not. I do not see anywhere in the BIble that God does violate man's free, such is against the nature of God. Because if God violoated a man's free will causing that man to sin then God punished that man for the sin God caused that is not part of God's just nature.

Did God cause/ordain Pharoah to disobey and not let the people go against his own will? Or did Phaoah of his own free choice decide to not let the people go?

I don't know your theological background but below is a post from a Calvinist Professor's book: (my emp)

"In Spite of All of the Foregoing Statements, We Have to Come to the Point Where We Confess That We Do Not Understand How It Is That God Can Ordain That We Carry Out Evil Deeds and Yet Hold Us Accountable for Them and Not be Blamed Himself: We can affirm that all of these things are true, because Scripture teaches them. But Scripture does not tell us exactly how God brings this situation about or how it can be that God holds us accountable for what he ordains to come to pass. Here Scripture is silent, and we have to agree with Berkhof that ultimately “the problem of God’s relation to sin remains a mystery" (Systematic Theology, p.331.)

Wayne Grudem

He says God ordains (forces, causes) men to do evil deeds then holds those men accountable for doing those evils deeds God fored them to do by ordination. Such is not in God's nature. Calivinists have created for themselves a problem they cannot answer, a problem that is not even found in the Bible to begin with!!!!!

 

[Hammster]

Because if God violoated a man's free will causing that man to sin then God punished that man for the sin God caused that is not part of God's just nature.

You keep making that assumption. Nobody is making an argument that God will cause a man to sin. So you are rebutting an argument that’s not being made.

 

[Butterball1]

You keep making that assumption. Nobody is making an argument that God will cause a man to sin. So you are rebutting an argument that’s not being made.

In what way then would God violate man's free wll?

 

[Hammster]

In what way then would God violate man's free wll?

Giving an enemy of God a new heart.

 

[TedT]

A common argument for an Arminian or Pelagian view of soteriology is that, "God will not violate man's freewill".

I agree that GOD will never violate a person's free will decison...which is why the Satanic are doomed as they chose by their free will to put themselves outside of HIS desires for them for eternity, that is, they have placed themselves outside of HIS loving grace and salvation for eternity. But since human sinners have no free will being addicted to sinfulness, when HE does something against the will of a sinful human, elect or reprobate, HE is only going against their EVIL, ADDICTED WILL, not their free will.

As well, no one is (can be) adjudicated to be a sinner by anyone's opinion except if they made a free will decison to rebel against GOD's deity or HIS commands for us.

 

[TedT]

God can do whatever He wishes to do, regardless of what any of us may think.

GOD will not ever go against a person's free will because OUR FREE WILL is the basis for HIS whole purpose in our creation!!!

1. He created us all to fill heaven with people in a full loving communion and communication with HIM and each other, a unity of fellowship best characterised as a marriage.

2. It is axiomatic that true love and a real marriage cannot be forced upon anyone but only chosen by their free will. We must choose by our free will to be married, to accept a marriage proposal for it to be real and love can't be forced by any means, only accepted.

3. It is also axiomatic that a free will cannot be constrained in any way, that is, a free will option can't be restricted by GOD from our choosing it just because HE does not like it or we cannot be said to have a free will. If we cannot choose to reject HIM and HIS marriage proposal because HE forces us to do only as HE wishes, we do not have a free will.

4. Therefore our free will with the ability and opportunity to reject HIS claim to be our GOD and to reject HIS offer of marriage was an absolute necessity even though the outcome was not what HE wanted and was totally against HIS desires.

There was no way to fulfill HIS desire of a heavenly marriage with us without the opportunity for some of HIS creation to reject that purpose and so cause evil to come into existence in HIS creation against HIS plan and approval.

HE could NOT WISH TO changed anything we chose by our free will by any power HE has...that is just not possible even if HE thought our choice was totally wrong and destructive.

 

[fhansen]

A common argument for an Arminian or Pelagian view of soteriology is that, "God will not violate man's freewill".

I have two question for discussion in this thread:

1) Is that statement biblically defensible?

Yes. There’s not much reason for the Bible to begin with if the will of man is not the “prize”, to speak. It’s written to man, as instruction and an appeal, from beginning to end.

2) Is the Calvinist position that God violates man's freewill?

If God definitively causes man to will one way instead of another, man’s will is not free in any real and meaningful sense of the term.

 

[Hammster]

If God definitively causes man to will one way instead of another, man’s will is not free in any real and meaningful sense of the term.

Hypothetically speaking, what if God took a heart of stone from a man, and gave him a heart of flesh, and with that new heart, the man freely loved God? Would that be okay?

 

[Butterball1]

Giving an enemy of God a new heart.

God does not give men a new heart against their will, Ezekiel 18:31.

 

[Hammster]

God does not give men a new heart against their will, Ezekiel 18:31.

You might want to read that again.


Cast away from you all your transgressions which you have committed and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! For why will you die, O house of Israel?
— Ezekiel 18:31

This says nothing about God giving anyone a new heart.

 

[fhansen]

Hypothetically speaking, what if God took a heart of stone from a man, and gave him a heart of flesh, and with that new heart, the man freely loved God? Would that be okay?

Well, I understand the concept but I think it's sort of making a distinction without a real difference and undermines or conflicts with both the gospel and the reality we deal with as believers, as well as God's overall purpose and plan for man in general. In Catholicism, for example, man cannot possibly save himself, God must move him; man cannot will rightly; he's lost to begin with and wouldn't know where to look for God even if he wanted to. But man can still refuse to be found-he can say "no"-and that's the not so subtle difference. Justification happens all at once as we're forgiven, washed, cleansed, made new creations indwelt by the Trinity as is the right and just order of things for man-that which he was made for-and a relationship that Adam had effectively spurned in Eden.

However, as believers, now oriented back to God but still on this side of the fence, we struggle, we strive, we must be vigilant, we must persevere, we must put to death the deeds of the flesh, we're instructed to love. And so while love is poured out into our hearts by the Spirit as per Rom 5:5 we don't necessarily embrace that love all at once, we continue to struggle against sin, we don't love God or neighbor so well-and we can fail big time to live as children of God, we can turn back and say "no" even after saying "yes", back to life in the flesh. The elect will be saved, of course, but we don't have perfect knowledge of who they are so election becomes a sort of moot theological point. It's supposed to involve a struggle of the will, drawn and aided by grace. In that way we work out our salvation together with He who works in us. Or not. It's a process, a choice and a series of choices throughout our lives. We can grow in holiness and righteousness, in nearness to God, a relationship which, itself, is the basis or even essence of man's justice or righteousness, a relationship established by faith.

Anyway, as our willful ownership of that relationship, of the righteousness given us, of our choosing good over evil, of our love, is confirmed, solidified, and grown, then our righteousness, our nearness to the image of God, is that much greater. And that's where He wants us. He's glorified to the extent that we love as He does, that we love Him with our whole heart, soul, mind and strength and our neighbor as ourselves. And love, necessarily, is a choice-or it's not love. God wants created beings who worship Him in spirit and truth because they finally know for themselves, as He does, of His ineffable and infinite goodness and worthiness. Their hearts are now fully oriented to the true and highest Good above all else. It begins now, with baby steps, He taking our hand, and we following.

 

[Butterball1]

You might want to read that again.


Cast away from you all your transgressions which you have committed and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! For why will you die, O house of Israel?
— Ezekiel 18:31

This says nothing about God giving anyone a new heart.

They are told to MAKE YOURSELVES a new heart and new spirit. It was their choice to make themselves a new heart and spirit not something forced upon them against their will.

 

[Hammster]

They are told to MAKE YOURSELVES a new heart and new spirit. It was their choice to make themselves a new heart and spirit not something forced upon them against their will.

And you think we can do that?

 

[TedT]

Hypothetically speaking, what if God took a heart of stone from a man, and gave him a heart of flesh, and with that new heart, the man freely loved God? Would that be okay?

Well, as my friend would say, "It depends." If the stony heart was due to a true free will decison by an ingenuously innocent person, then no. If it refers to a elect who had once put their faith in YHWH for salvation then fell into deep sin, (the prodigal son) then, yes because it goes against the sinful will, not his free will decision to be accept the Son as his saviour.

In my Christian Opinion

Fellowship = communion = marriage

Please consider:
GOD wanted to create a Church, a congregation of people in full loving, holy communion with HIM in heaven BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO BE THERE WITH HIM IN THAT REALITY! They must have truly wanted love, holiness and heaven as HE defines it.

How did HE find all the people in HIS creation who would like to live that way, after HE taught them all about it and all about the alternatives? HE asked them to make a true free will decision to accept HIM as their GOD and to accept HIS purpose for their creation. HE created all people in HIS image ingenuously innocent with the ability to make free will decisions and choices. Period.

Faith, not sight / proof
How did HE ensure they really wanted that and were not just pushed into it by HIS being all GODlike and all? Looking the same as anyone else, HE offered no proof at all that HE was divine and that HE could take us to heaven or help us learn to be pure, holy and loving but asked us to accept this on faith, ie the hope that it was all true because we liked what we heard so well and wanted it so much, we didn't need proof to accept it. Faith = hope, of the unseen, the unproven, hope in our eternal life in heaven with GOD in full loving, holy communion, ie fulfilling HIS reason for our creation.

By not proving HIMself overwhelmingly but hiding HIS glory, GOD allows us each to choose where to put our faith, by which we actually define our own reality, the world view we live in which also defines both God and our relationship with Him from our point of view. "This is what I believe" means "This is the way I hope the reality of the universe is." 2 Corinthians 5:7 We live by faith, not by sight (ie proof).

BUT if someone chose to accept HIM as their GOD and to accept HIS purpose for their creation, HE promised them ELECTION to heaven, backed by the gospel promise that if they should ever choose to become evil in HIS sight, HE would do whatever was necessary to bring them to redemption, back to HIM and back to their original true free will decision.

For those elect who did chose to become evil in HIS sight, HE gave PREDESTINED human lives, perfectly designed to fulfill their salvation and to bring them to holiness.

Since this all happened before earth's creation, and since earth is where these people work out the redemptive purposes of their predestined lives, this is not the place where we try to find GOD but the place where we work out our already made decisions about HIM.

Of course this allowed some to reject HIM and so put themselves outside of HIS mercy, grace and love for eternity because their free will to repent and accept HIM was destroyed by three things:

1. their enslavement to sin by choosing evil

2. When their choice to reject GOD as a false GOD and a liar most evil was proven wrong (by HIS creation of the physical universe) it meant their "free " will was now coerced by the knowledge of HIS deity so they could never choose to accept HIM as GOD by free will, which was a necessity for salvation and

3. they could now never again choose HIM by faith because what is proven is no longer faith: Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Faith is hope.

Romans 8:24 For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has? This faith / hope saves if it is not based upon proof (ie what is seen).

Thus they are condemned by their refusal to accept YHWH as their GOD, putting themselves outside of all HIS promises and self creating themselves as demons and devils eternally unable to fulfill HIS purpose in their creation, fit only to be banished from this reality.

Peace, Ted

 

[Brightfame52]

A common argument for an Arminian or Pelagian view of soteriology is that, "God will not violate man's freewill".

I have two question for discussion in this thread:

1) Is that statement biblically defensible?

2) Is the Calvinist position that God violates man's freewill?

God dont care nothing about mans will. Dan 4:35

and all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?

 

[Butterball1]

And you think we can do that?

Yes, the Bible says man can do that.

 

[Hammster]

Yes, the Bible says man can do that.

No. In fact, there heresy is widely rejected in orthodox Christianity.